Filters have saved my front element more than four times across a variety of shooting conditions and have minimal flare or reflection if you don't skimp.
Sometimes, when you're trying to setup a tripod on difficult terrain, have a big backpack on, have two camera bodies attached to your neck and you're trying to setup a Lee filter, bad things can happen because there's too much going on at once. It's just cheap insurance.
I would vote virtually never. I don't use them, shoot daily outdoors, never had a single problem with damage to lenses. I have had a number of shots ruined by unexpected flare though. I also think UV filters are quite dangerous. The only time I did have severe damage to a lens, a filter (polarizer) hit a rock and shattered, and the broken shards of filter did a number on my lens! Same thing happened to my buddy--broken filter ruined his lens. Nothing scratches glass like glass. I use the lens cap when not taking a photo--they are nearly bullet proof. I also use a lens hood, which deflects stuff from hitting the lens in the first place. Modern coatings are very, very tough, and I think the biggest danger to them is a broken filter. My personal experience. Another thought. For me to put top quality filters on each of my lenses would cost me MORE than a repair! What's the economic sense of that? The only good a UV filter does is provide more profit for camera dealers.
Two23 wrote:
The only good a UV filter does is provide more profit for camera dealers.
I'll have to see if I still have my previous 67mm UV filter and post a picture of it. After one year of fieldwork it was covered in nicks and scratches. And I even use a hood too.
I have one on my macro lens (100L) since I shoot it w/o the hood quite a bit and I don't want to bump the front element. I also have one on my CY35-70 since I often forget to bring the big ugly rubber bumper hood for it.
I cannot recall whether there were ever situations when I was happy that a filter saved my lens.
I believe that, though image degradation with a filter is negligible, a 'naked' lens will give you all the quality it can give you, with no excuses.
At the same time, there are instances when you must have a filter for protection (sandy places, rain, drizzle, salt water sprays, and so on).
FlyPenFly wrote:
If it was enough force to shatter a glass filter it would have shattered or horrible misaligned your front element.
Not true. A front element is MASSIVELY harder to damage than a super thin filter. The front elements are TOUGH. And the fact is, if an impact that shatters your filter was hard enough to shatter your front element...it would still shatter your front element.
I have yet to see a single instance where a DROP had the filter save the lens. The filter shatters, but there's no real 'crumple zone' to decelerate the lens, so there's still a huge impact on the lens with or without the filter. All the filter does in this case is shatter and make your front element subject to shards of glass that wouldn't have been there if you didn't have the filter on. The fact is, the filter would shatter if you dropped it by itself, and it weighs next to nothing...add the force of the lens to the drop and now you're talking a LOT more force...that filter is going to shatter in nearly every single drop the lens ever sustains, exposing your element to potential glass damage due to filter shards, while providing essentially zero impact on the saving of the lens. I've seen a lot of instances where people with filters drop their lenses, which jams the filter on their lens, and the only way to remove it is to hammer out all the glass in the filter and use pliers to remove the filter ring.
I have never shot with UV filters except when shooting in water spray or blowing sand (where they CAN help) and I have never ONCE scratched my front element. That's about 70 lenses and a decade of shooting and I have exactly zero scratched front elements. The money I've saved buying high quality UV filters for all of those lenses likely numbers around $2K, so I've got more than enough in the bank to save things. Plus, I have insurance on all my gear, so in the event of a catastrophic accident, I can get the lens replaced for free.
Doesn't protect your lenses from salt spray and sand and such, especially wide angle lenses.
Whether you need a protection/UV filter depends mostly on the shooting conditions (also taking into consideration your own clumsiness/bad luck), IMO. I rarely shoot in conditions that are harsh to my lenses or potentially damaging somehow. My lenses are actually most likely to get damaged in my bag, because it's on the small side and the lenses may rub against each other or something (when I forget to put on the caps).
I use UV filters AND lens hoods on all my lenses. Not to protect from impacts, but from frequent cleanings. The flare thing is total BS. Many tests and comparisons have been done. There may be flare with the filter, but when you remove the filter, guess what, the flare is still there, probably slightly less, but there nevertheless. Same goes for ghostings at night. Nice quality lenses and filters are flare resistant. It's just a matter of personal preference.
I used to have skylight or UV filters on all my lenses. A habit carried over from my photojournalism days when I'd cover house fires, NASCAR races, and baseball games where dirt and grit were everywhere. Hind sight being twenty-twenty, the only time the filter came in handy was with the NASCAR races when hot rubber would fly up from the track and pepper the front of my camera (this was during the days we could be on the other side of the fence).
When I started shooting a lot of macro, I found these filters got in the way and effected image quality.
So... while I no longer use a filter religiously, that doesn't mean if you do, you are doing something wrong. A filter is just another piece of photographic equipment. Use it if you see the need.
Now I will echo that a lens hood is a must. I think it protects your front element just as well (if not better) than a filter will. Many a basketball has been deflected by my lens hood.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Adding a UV is pointless in the digital world, get a good clear protector (Marumi) if you find a filter necessary.
UV filtration was pointless in the film world too. UV transmission through glass is very poor. UV transmission through modern (at least the last 30 years, probably longer) coatings is practically nonexistant.
UV filter, for better or worse, is a generic term for any clear filter.
